FIRST SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 47703/99
by Fiorenzo SERNI
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 31 January 2002 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrE. Levits,
MrA. Kovler,
MrV. Zagrebelsky, judges,
and Mr E. Fribergh, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 20 November 1998 and registered on 23 April 1999,
Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1937 and living in Livorno.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Livorno, which he had let to M.S.
In a registered letter of 4 March 1983, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
On 9 October 1984, he served a notice to quit on the tenant, but he refused to leave.
In a writ served on the tenant on 7 January 1986, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Livorno Magistrate.
By a decision of 20 January 1986, which was made enforceable on 21 January 1986, the Livorno Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 20 December 1986.
On 2 April 1987 the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
On 21 April 1987 he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 24 May 1987.
Between 24 May 1987 and 27 November 1998 the bailiff made eighteen attempts to recover possession.
Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
On 15 December 1998, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.
THE LAW
The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that his inability to recover possession of his apartment amounted to a violation of the right to property. He also argues that the refusal of the administration to enforce the order issued by the magistrate has interfered with the power of the judiciary. The Court has examined this complaint under Article 6 of the Convention.
The Government maintain that the measures in question amount to a control of the use of property which pursues the legitimate aim of avoiding the social tensions and troubles to public order that would occur if a considerable number of orders for possession were to be enforced simultaneously. In their opinion, the interference with the applicant’s property rights was not disproportionate.
As to the length of the enforcement proceedings, the Government maintain that the delay in providing the assistance of the police is justified by the protection of the public interest.
The Court considers that the application raises complex and serious issues which require a determination on the merits. It follows that it cannot be considered as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring the application inadmissible has been established.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.
Erik FriberghChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy